Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

To put this into context: Would you expect career military men being homosexual? Probably not, yet studies show quite a few of them are, just not publicly. I would vote for correlation but would not expect to find causality. In some professions it's much easier to be public about your sexual orientation. Being homosexual might affect a person's career choice at some point.

Obviously no proper study exists on whether homosexuality is a benefit for a skill, and doubt it would be even possible to show such a connection.

No, I just think the the arts are a safer community for being public about it, and so homosexuals who end up in the arts are more likely to have that fact known about them, and homosexuals who have a choice of careers might choose the arts over professions with less understanding communities.

One might also add in addition to the above observation that because homosexuals, even today, are presented with a personally urgent intellectual and emotional conundrum from a wee age in the realization that they are different to the suggestions made by the majority of default and ubiquitous cultural messaging (and that they are then forced to constantly make conscious decisions about what they do or do not do or say about themselves as opposed to just living spontaneously in freedom) that they become during the critical years of brain development sensitive to all kinds of differences and aware of the profound revelation in life that there are no absolutes and that everything is relative.

Heightened sensitivity and the artistic freedom that such precocious, personality-forming understanding brings tends to be helpful to be successful as a pianist.

You are making the case that this topic should be declared VERBOTEN and that those daring to discuss it are guilty of some kind of implicit discrimination. However, I have only seen one single offensive comment on this thread:

Originally Posted by Silverwood Pianos

These performers are what they are. Their motivations for being a certain way are none of our business.

This is the kind of discriminatory mis-understanding that needs to be nipped in the bud, not an open and honest discussion of the OP's open question.

Originally Posted by FSO

It's actually important to consider; we don't know what quite a lot of the brain does so...if we can draw correlations we can steadily build a more complete picture of what makes certain talents appear...um...it doesn't matter *socially*, but scientifically it would be remiss to ignore...no?

"It is none of our business" ... *cough* then what is? I must admit, I find it very strange how strong the anti-discrimination impulse is within the current climate, if you will. I mean, um, discrimination isn't a bad thing; it's our way of determining one from another. I mean, people may consider it none of their business as to the sexuality of another, but will *discriminate* against paedophiles; not allowing them to work in schools for instance. But that just makes sense, the masses cry...so why not disclose sexuality, gender, race et al.? If your friend was the only black person in the room and you were trying to direct another to engage them in conversation, why not say "oh, go talk to Peter over there, the black chap" rather than "oh, go talk to Peter over there, the one stood not quite North facing"? Discrimination makes sense; it is, I believe, the fear and inability of the public to accept discrimination that allows unduly *negative* discrimination to continue. Oh, um...it's also quite amusing to me how it's considered acceptable to be discriminatory so long as you are "one of them"...I appreciate that people are just trying to be fair to all, but discrimination isn't the enemy. I mean...explain how someone paralysed from the waist below can't run without being discriminatory towards the notion that there exist disabled people and I'll grant you my salutations. Treating people *equally* doesn't mean treating them the *same* and it seems folly to me that our terms of address shouldn't follow the same approach. Sorry, um, I don't mean to antagonise anyone but...if we live in fear of discrimination or discriminating...well, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate... XxxEdit: Thank you, Carey, for swooping in on the "motivations" point before I did; I'm glad someone else picked up on that

No, I just think the the arts are a safer community for being public about it, and so homosexuals who end up in the arts are more likely to have that fact known about them, and homosexuals who have a choice of careers might choose the arts over professions with less understanding communities.

One might also add in addition to the above observation that because homosexuals, even today, are presented with a personally urgent intellectual and emotional conundrum from a wee age in the realization that they are different to the suggestions made by the majority of default and ubiquitous cultural messaging (and that they are then forced to constantly make conscious decisions about what they do or do not do or say about themselves as opposed to just living spontaneously in freedom) that they become during the critical years of brain development sensitive to all kinds of differences and aware of the profound revelation in life that there are no absolutes and that everything is relative.

Heightened sensitivity and the artistic freedom that such precocious, personality-forming understanding brings tends to be helpful to be successful as a pianist.

I think this is incredibly highbrow, uncommonly intelligent, and yet, inherently flawed. But let me be clear on what I think is flawed: your statement presupposes that only the homosexual community is faced with this kind of adversity, and hence, only the homosexual community can reach that super-sensitive place you've described in which such artistic genius, apparently, revels. This, I cannot say I agree with.

Our global society has come a long way towards accepting sexual orientation, but admittingly, still has a long way to go. So, I am not going to argue that your observations are flawed. I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. However, I think the conclusion you draw is falsely based on some unexamined/unknown bias.

Firstly, statistics doesn't agree with you. Using a 2012 Gallup Poll, 3.4% of the US population identifies as LGBT. If we consider an even cross-section of applicants for artistic endeavors, that would mean, for every 97 heterosexual students, there are 3 who are not. So, purely statistically speaking, it is far more likely for a gifted artist to come from the larger population than the smaller.

Of course, we could say that, perhaps, only 5% of heterosexuals go into artistic endeavors. Let's also say 100% of LGBT go into the arts, just so we can create a bias towards LGBT. That means for every 4.85 hetero artists, there are 3.4 LGBT. A much better ratio. This means, for every 59 hetero, there are 41 LGBT (out of 100). While the numbers are much closer, your average Las Vegas casino makes billions on ratios much smaller than this. So, it is still far more likely that a gifted artist will come from the hetero community than the LGBT community.

Secondly, we must examine your claim of emotional sensitivity as driven by adversity. I think there are many types of adversity that make one open to the sort of sensitivity that creates talented artists. Typically, this sensitivity is described as necessarily viewing yourself as "outside" society. This separation allows the artist to "look in" at society and see something they would like to describe/use/exploit in their art. This has been described of every artistic endeavor. The metaphor of Plato's Cave would be accurate to use here. I am sure you know it, so I won't bore you by repeating its applicability here.

To continue, this adversity can be drawn from many areas. You may lose one or both parents, be orphaned from the start, not fit in in school, get picked on, bullied, made fun of, have no luck in the dating world, fail at your dreams.. any number of things can provide that kind of sensitivity that creates an "outside" perspective. I don't think it is even remotely accurate to suggest that the homosexual community has a corner on the market.

As such, we must go back to the statistical analysis and derive the conclusion that it is far more likely a talented artist would come from the hetero community than the LGBT.

Now, why the assumption about LGBT? Well, this is much more speculative, but perhaps because such powerful and well-known people in the community are openly expressive of their orientation, we tend to get the sense that it applies to the artistic community as a whole, even if it does not. I also think that Kreisler's comment applies here, that LGBT individuals tend to be more outspoken and expressive of their beliefs in a community, like the arts, where it is more accepted and where their job doesn't hinder on their sexual orientation.

But none of that supports the argument that LGBT are somehow "inherently" better artists. I think such a concept shortchanges not only heterosexuals who are talented artists, but also every LGBT who worked their tails off to get where they are within the arts. You get to the top of the arts by busting your @$$ until you make it, not by your sexual preference.

Regarding Horowitz's original quote, I think it's flat-out wrong. It's racist and sexist. I'll provide two historical examples: Liszt and Mozart. They weren't Jewish, Russian, or gay, and to this day, they would seem to stand on the pinnacle of pianistic abilities.

Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

I think this is incredibly highbrow, uncommonly intelligent, and yet, inherently flawed. But let me be clear on what I think is flawed: your statement presupposes that only the homosexual community is faced with this kind of adversity, and hence, only the homosexual community can reach that super-sensitive place you've described in which such artistic genius, apparently, revels. This, I cannot say I agree with.

No. That is a mistake in logic. My statement makes no such presupposition.

It is also not about "adversity" per se, but about the realization of children during their identity-forming, personality-molding, brain-developing years, without having asked for it or even wanting it, that they are not only different but, particularly in the case of homosexuality, perhaps even considered to be illicitly contrary to the very fabric of one or more or most cultural assumptions in the environment in which they are growing up.

The fact that many/most homosexuals raised in those countries celebrating the Western Music tradition are faced with this situation does not in any way imply that no others might also be faced with a kind of clash or misfit that forces them to be more sensitive, more aware, more consciously engaged by force rather than unconsciously relaxing in their unquestioned and unexamined perfect fit and thus potentially more artistically inclined and/or attracted to self-expression on the piano.

I have limited my statement to homosexuals, not LBT or even BLT. One could also discuss Korean foster children growing up on Iowa farms, unwanted black orphans from the USA being lovingly raised by their two gay Dutch daddies in Amsterdam, confirmed atheists being raised by Southern Baptists, awkward, effeminate straight boys being raised by rabid sports fans, etc. etc. However, the statistical problems you mention become even thornier.

There is another aspect that has not been discussed, which is this: in many, many places within the popular culture in which many boys -- straight and gay -- grow up in still today (or even more so today) it takes a lot of self-confidence, independence of thought or if you wish, " balls ", to even admit that you like classical music and the piano, let alone to actually ask for and receive and persevere through ten years of expensive lessons. Taking piano lessons in (junior) high school can cost you your friends, your quarterback position, your social status, your sexual attractiveness, your shot at homecoming king, etc. etc. If you already don't have one or more or any of those things, then the cost of indulging yourself with your passion for the piano is much lower. Outsiders have less to lose.

Regarding Horowitz's original quote, I think it's flat-out wrong. It's racist and sexist. I'll provide two historical examples: Liszt and Mozart. They weren't Jewish, Russian, or gay, and to this day, they would seem to stand on the pinnacle of pianistic abilities.

This goes without saying.

Lesson learned: Never take apocryphal quotes of campy, ironical, self-deprecating, confontational attempts at humor as a statement of fact.

I think this is incredibly highbrow, uncommonly intelligent, and yet, inherently flawed. But let me be clear on what I think is flawed: your statement presupposes that only the homosexual community is faced with this kind of adversity, and hence, only the homosexual community can reach that super-sensitive place you've described in which such artistic genius, apparently, revels. This, I cannot say I agree with.

No. That is a mistake in logic. My statement makes no such presupposition.

It is also not about "adversity" per se, but about the realization of children during their identity-forming, personality-molding, brain-developing years, without having asked for it or even wanting it, that they are not only different but, particularly in the case of homosexuality, perhaps even considered to be illicitly contrary to the very fabric of one or more or most cultural assumptions in the environment in which they are growing up.

The fact that many/most homosexuals raised in those countries celebrating the Western Music tradition are faced with this situation does not in any way imply that no others might also be faced with a kind of clash or misfit that forces them to be more sensitive, more aware, more consciously engaged by force rather than unconsciously relaxing in their unquestioned and unexamined perfect fit and thus potentially more artistically inclined and/or attracted to self-expression on the piano.

I have limited my statement to homosexuals, not LBT or even BLT. One could also discuss Korean foster children growing up on Iowa farms, unwanted black orphans from the USA being lovingly raised by their two gay Dutch daddies in Amsterdam, confirmed atheists being raised by Southern Baptists, awkward, effeminate straight boys being raised by rabid sports fans, etc. etc. However, the statistical problems you mention become even thornier.

There is another aspect that has not been discussed, which is this: in many, many places within the popular culture in which many boys -- straight and gay -- grow up in still today (or even more so today) it takes a lot of self-confidence, independence of thought or if you wish, " balls ", to even admit that you like classical music and the piano, let alone to actually ask for and receive and persevere through ten years of expensive lessons. Taking piano lessons in (junior) high school can cost you your friends, your quarterback position, your social status, your sexual attractiveness, your shot at homecoming king, etc. etc. If you already don't have one or more or any of those things, then the cost of indulging yourself with your passion for the piano is much lower. Outsiders have less to lose.

It is worth pointing out, I think, that being "gifted" in anything also tends to make children feel different in some degree, regardless of their sexuality. There may be some kind of synergistic effect that happens with kids who are gifted and who also happen not to be heterosexual. It's like they get a double-whammy of identity issues on their plate to figure out, and often with not a lot of outside help. My sense is that being in that situation could force a kid into using their imagination in ways that also turn out to be artistically useful.

That's a good point, wr. Walking down the street singing, "Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis" will engender serious social adversity. If the incredulous hearers-by would learn that the offender is gay, well, I think that amounts in their minds to having encountered a gay alien.

Regarding Horowitz's original quote, I think it's flat-out wrong. It's racist and sexist. I'll provide two historical examples: Liszt and Mozart. They weren't Jewish, Russian, or gay, and to this day, they would seem to stand on the pinnacle of pianistic abilities.

Horowitz's statement was meant as a joke. It's just his way of saying a very significant percentage of good pianists are Jewish or gay. I think it's a given he didn't mean it in an absolute sense. His pianistic idol was Rachmaninov, and I'm sure he thought Liszt was very great.

But none of that supports the argument that LGBT are somehow "inherently" better artists.

I also would not make this kind of generalization.

Originally Posted by Derulux

I think such a concept shortchanges not only heterosexuals who are talented artists, but also every LGBT who worked their tails off to get where they are within the arts. You get to the top of the arts by busting your @$$ until you make it, not by your sexual preference.

However, you make it sound as if " getting to the top " of the arts is like some kind of Mad Men career race. Especially given the materialistic connotations of a busted posterior written with two dollar signs. Arbeit ist zuss & success means material success, etc.

I would argue that there is often (usually? always?) something else or something more going on in becoming a top artist (whether recognized as such or not), such as: parents that are willing to sacrifice their own life for the potential artistic life of their child (Lang Lang anyone?), timing (being in the right place at the right time doing the right things), network/contacts, dumb luck, the right conservatory/teachers/mentors, the right opportunities, choosing a genre/period/composer that is in demand rather than your first love, etc.

Next of course are ephemeral things such as "aptitude", "talent", "character", "poise/charisma", "ability to connect", etc.

I had a Russian piano teacher who said there was a saying in Russian to the effect of "Troubles make your Soul and your playing is always a mirror into your Soul." She believed that truly great artists were made in the character crucible of "nobody knows the trouble I've seen...".

When you hear someone like Mikhail Pletnev play something as dead simple as Thaichowsky's Autumn, you can palpably hear and feel that his inner life has not just been a bed of roses.

I have been in the music industry forty years. Lots of people in all walks of life are gay, lesbian, transgendered.

One experience at a particular college does not make a study sample worthy of consideration.

Would the thread be any better if we were discussing the disproportionate amount of Jewish people in finance?

How about all the black garbage collectors?

How about all of the left handed redheads of the world?

Do not let me prevent anyone from the joys of stereotyping. Carry on

Yes, talking about all of those things is important, and that's why we do it. We talk about why engineering and science schools are so heavily dominated by men, very few women appear. We acknowledge the achievement gap between predominantly black and predominantly white schools. Good lord, we have entire government funded organizations to study and discuss these matters. Your apparent taking offense at someone pointing out (simply pointing out!) that there seems to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the arts (or, as Kreisler suggested, a higher percentage of openly homosexual individuals in the arts) than other industries is, frankly, just silly.

Normally I shy away from replying to such controversial topics but here I feel my position is so rare only because it is not said enough: I do not believe there is any earthly connection between the two. There is no link. No causality. I have absolutely no idea how one's orientation would ever affect one's skill at the keyboard. It's a complete non-issue for me. The subject bordering on a waste of time. And as such I will now return to enjoying music and practicing piano.

Your apparent taking offense at someone pointing out (simply pointing out!) that there seems to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the arts (or, as Kreisler suggested, a higher percentage of openly homosexual individuals in the arts) than other industries is, frankly, just silly.

Obviously, for some folks, perception is reality.

ACTUALLY the original post simply referred to "some of the best pianists" - (i.e., Is it a coincidence some of the best pianists: from Richter, to (apparently?) Lang Lang, to Kissin, Bernstein, Liberace, Artur Pizarro etc.... Are all gay? Do you think there is any correlation? Does it matter?)

Somehow this thread evolved from discussing "Some of the best pianists" to "individuals in the arts in general."

As for the OP's original question:

"Do you think there is any correlation" (between playing the piano well and being gay???) NO

No no, Carey, let RonaldSteinway explain, I assume, himself; which of those qualities do heterosexuals miss out on? And females...? Um...I'm not judging your assertions but...it strikes me that you're insinuating that gay men have the highest chance of being perfect human beings...you're making some pretty bold claims here

No no, Carey, let RonaldSteinway explain, I assume, himself; which of those qualities do heterosexuals miss out on? And females...? Um...I'm not judging your assertions but...it strikes me that you're insinuating that gay men have the highest chance of being perfect human beings...you're making some pretty bold claims here

I didn't even want to acknowledge the "female" comment. Would any of our female PW members like to chime in here????

No no, Carey, let RonaldSteinway explain, I assume, himself; which of those qualities do heterosexuals miss out on? And females...? Um...I'm not judging your assertions but...it strikes me that you're insinuating that gay men have the highest chance of being perfect human beings...you're making some pretty bold claims here

I didn't even want to acknowledge the "female" comment. Would any of our female PW members like to chime in here????

Horowitz, who denied being homosexual,[24] once joked, "There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists."

Score = two out of three.

When you are always the last one picked to be on a team, staying home with the piano has more appeal.

Yes, Rubinstein said that it was common knowledge among pianists that Horowitz was homosexual, but no one gave it a second thought.

Originally Posted by debrucey

This has got nothing to do with stereotypING. This is to do with talking ABOUT stereotypes. How they arise, and whether or not there is any truth in them. This is not the same as being taken in by them.

Absolutely. Stereotypes are exploded and neutralized by discussing them, not by closing our eyes to them. And it's important to remember that stereotypes always contain a kernel of truth, no matter how distorted that truth may become over time.

A good example, (though unrelated to the topic at hand), is the old stereotype that blacks just love chicken and watermelon, as though this were some sort of genetic trait. Until fairly recently, the economic history of black Americans has required them to do a lot with very little, so finding inexpensive sources of protein (chicken), vegetables (greens of various types), and fruit (watermelon) would have been of paramount importance to them, as it would be to any poor family. These foods pack a lot of nutritional wallop, for relatively little money. This is called rational economic behavior, stretching a dollar, etc., and is not due to some innate craving for particular foods. Ironically, poor whites ate pretty much these same foods, yet managed to escape the stereotype. And that's because the essential truth within it was twisted to suit the malicious purposes of bigoted whites, who used it as one more opportunity to ridicule the life style of their fellow Americans who happened to be black.

IMO discussing stereotypes is a good thing. It allows us to break them down and separate the "truth part" from the "lie part". In the process, we can, perhaps, neutralize them entirely. But silence, I'm afraid, is simply acquiescence and only perpetuates the myth, or the "lie part".

No no, Carey, let RonaldSteinway explain, I assume, himself; which of those qualities do heterosexuals miss out on? And females...? Um...I'm not judging your assertions but...it strikes me that you're insinuating that gay men have the highest chance of being perfect human beings...you're making some pretty bold claims here

I didn't even want to acknowledge the "female" comment. Would any of our female PW members like to chime in here????

Horowitz, who denied being homosexual,[24] once joked, "There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists."

Score = two out of three.

When you are always the last one picked to be on a team, staying home with the piano has more appeal.

Yes, Rubinstein said that it was common knowledge among pianists that Horowitz was homosexual, but no one gave it a second thought.

Originally Posted by debrucey

This has got nothing to do with stereotypING. This is to do with talking ABOUT stereotypes. How they arise, and whether or not there is any truth in them. This is not the same as being taken in by them.

Absolutely. Stereotypes are exploded and neutralized by discussing them, not by closing our eyes to them. And it's important to remember that stereotypes always contain a kernel of truth, no matter how distorted that truth may become over time.

A good example, (though unrelated to the topic at hand), is the old stereotype that blacks just love chicken and watermelon, as though this were some sort of genetic trait. Until fairly recently, the economic history of black Americans has required them to do a lot with very little, so finding inexpensive sources of protein (chicken), vegetables (greens of various types), and fruit (watermelon) would have been of paramount importance to them, as it would be to any poor family. These foods pack a lot of nutritional wallop, for relatively little money. This is called rational economic behavior, stretching a dollar, etc., and is not due to some innate craving for particular foods. Ironically, poor whites ate pretty much these same foods, yet managed to escape the stereotype. And that's because the essential truth within it was twisted to suit the malicious purposes of bigoted whites, who used it as one more opportunity to ridicule the life style of their fellow Americans who happened to be black.

IMO discussing stereotypes is a good thing. It allows us to break them down and separate the "truth part" from the "lie part". In the process, we can, perhaps, neutralize them entirely. But silence, I'm afraid, is simply acquiescence and only perpetuates the myth, or the "lie part".